Jump to content
BowhunterNJ

Adult Deer Contest Rules and Scoring Discussion

Scoring and Rules Options  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Which scoring method do you prefer

    • Current Scoring Method
    • New Scoring Method
    • Other Scoring Method


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, JHbowhunter said:

We are proposing the buckmaster system.   It's the P&Y NT calc sheet, but you just add back in the deductions at the  end so everything counts. Definitely not enough interest so I doubt we will be making changes. Only 16 votes.    If we keep it the same - probably just need to give more credit beyond 17", and carry it into the 20s.     OR - instead of measuring inside spread (one measurement) we could compromise and take two beam total.   Yes that requires a cable (a phone charging cord works great btw), but it's pretty easy to do.   

What about "points" plus beam credit?   i.e. - An 8 point buck, plus 20" plus 20" beams, = 48 points.  9 point buck, 21" plus 22" beams = 52 points, etc.

This would at least give narrow bucks having exceptional beams to compete.

 

If it came down to that then it should be required that the rack has to be brought to the W&W Christmas party and or have a get together right after the winter bow season and have a couple guys that know how to measure score the bucks out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Lunatic said:

I think adding one or two more parameters would help. I like the longest beam or the longest point or both. - Adding beams would do the same

two beams would give a better summary of the buck over just spread for sure.   But rather than have credit bands, just have it round up to the next highest even number...  19 4/8" beam becomes 20, etc.    Hell to make it cool - count ALL beams, for those rare freaks that grow an extra main beam...

Edited by JHbowhunter
  • Agree 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Buck154 said:

If it came down to that then it should be required that the rack has to be brought to the W&W Christmas party and or have a get together right after the winter bow season and have a couple guys that know how to measure score the bucks out.  

yes and the mods can always reserve the right to call for a "compare" in the event there is a close call.   

Edited by JHbowhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JHbowhunter said:

yes and the mods can always reserve the right to call for a "compare" in the even there is a close call.   

Yup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LATEST SCORING SUGGESTION:

OK, so it sounds pretty favorable for Buck Scoring to comprise of:

  • - Number of total points 1" or greater
  • - Measurement of the longest beam
  • - Measurement of the longest point 

Have to figure this will range in scores from say a minimum of 3 (1 + 1 + 1 for a 1" spike) to 52 (12 + 24 + 16 for a pretty giant 12 pointer) or more.  Is 10 points for a doe a suitable score for contributing to scoring?

With this scoring, we can eliminate the Grouping of width measurements and also avoid the inconsistency of measuring air between the antlers.

Main Beam Measurement:

Tine Length Measurement:

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Measurement of just the longest beam, and just the longest point, would allow a "half rack" to technically compete.    Do we want that?

I say just do both beams, plus points 1" or more.  Either use the length of the beams plus points as total score (20+20+8) is a score 48 as an 8pt with 20" beams.

Maybe award 20 points for a doe.

=================================================================================================

If we want to take longest tine, then should take from each side.  Then that same 8pt having matching 10" G2's would be 20 + 20 + 8 + 10 = 58.

But now we are halfway to just measuring the whole damn thing.

Edited by JHbowhunter
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The 10 points for a doe is fine.

If going to go with all those measurements might as well measure the entire rack

Edited by Buck154
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BowhunterNJ said:

LATEST SCORING SUGGESTION:

OK, so it sounds pretty favorable for Buck Scoring to comprise of:

  • - Number of total points 1" or greater
  • - Measurement of the longest beam
  • - Measurement of the longest point 

Have to figure this will range in scores from say a minimum of 3 (1 + 1 + 1 for a 1" spike) to 52 (12 + 24 + 16 for a pretty giant 12 pointer) or more.  Is 10 points for a doe a suitable score for contributing to scoring?

With this scoring, we can eliminate the Grouping of width measurements and also avoid the inconsistency of measuring air between the antlers.

Main Beam Measurement:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, good point @JHbowhunter on a half rack!  This all drives to full rack measurements.

Minimally measuring two of the longest tines and both main beams to at least get a somewhat balanced measure.  But like you said, a few more measurements and you have the entire rack measured anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, JHbowhunter said:

Measurement of just the longest beam, and just the longest point, would allow a "half rack" to technically compete.    Do we want that?

I say just do both beams, plus points 1" or more.  Either use the length of the beams plus points as total score (20+20+8) is a score 48 as an 8pt with 20" beams.

Maybe award 20 points for a doe.

=================================================================================================

If we want to take longest tine, then should take from each side.  Then that same 8pt having matching 10" G2's would be 20 + 20 + 8 + 10 = 68.

But now we are halfway to just measuring the whole damn thing.

That’s why I suggested additional measurements, not measurements in lieu of spread 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Lunatic said:

That’s why I suggested additional measurements, not measurements in lieu of spread 

This is madness.  There is only one way to get it fair and correct. But nobody will want to do it and it will take all the "fun" out of it.   (well half of us do enjoy the measuring part while half can't be bothered).   So anything short of that, will leave a very open risk that a massive buck anyone would shoot could lose to a far less buck many would not shoot.

I give up.  Keep it the way it is (the vote says so anyway) - just add more spread bands into the 20s at least. Then everyone can just do one measurement (which is the easiest one), and count points, and be done. 

Everyone will at least know going into it, that if that massive 5x5 buck of a lifetime, is only 15.5" wide, and the current leader is a young spindly 17" 10pt, they won't win.  

(and I doubt anyone seriously thinks about that anyway in the moment of truth)

Good debate at least. Nobody got butt hurt .

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JHbowhunter said:

This is madness.  There is only one way to get it fair and correct. But nobody will want to do it and it will take all the "fun" out of it.   (well half of us do enjoy the measuring part while half can't be bothered).   So anything short of that, will leave a very open risk that a massive buck anyone would shoot could lose to a far less buck many would not shoot.

I give up.  Keep it the way it is (the vote says so anyway) - just add more spread bands into the 20s at least. Then everyone can just do one measurement (which is the easiest one), and count points, and be done. 

Everyone will at least know going into it, that if that massive 5x5 buck of a lifetime, is only 15.5" wide, and the current leader is a young spindly 17" 10pt, they won't win.  

(and I doubt anyone seriously thinks about that anyway in the moment of truth)

Good debate at least. Nobody got butt hurt .

Could always put a clause in contest.  Places dependent on p&y score if there is that big a discrepancy as you described..  but as you said it hadn't happened yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, instead of Groups I think we'll just use the raw inside width measurement.  It has to be measured anyway, so why not use it.  It will add more variance to scores as well and avoid ties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vdep217 said:

Could always put a clause in contest.  Places dependent on p&y score if there is that big a discrepancy as you described..  but as you said it hadn't happened yet

The biggest issue IMO is really ties and not having enough score variance.  That too leads to some smaller scoring bucks getting higher scores as well.

Although I think now if we don't use Groups for width categories, then width would dominate scoring overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JHbowhunter said:

This is madness. 

Bingo!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...